Moroccanoil, Inc. v. Allstate Beauty Products, Inc.
847 F. Supp. 2d 1197
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiff Moroccanoil, Inc. moves for default judgment against Defendant Alexander Bederoff under Doc. #21.
- Allstate Beauty Products, Inc. and Delacqua Salon, Inc. were previously dismissed; Bederoff did not appear at hearing.
- Court held a hearing on March 2, 2012; Courtney M. Ryan, counsel for Moroccanoil, appeared, no appearance for Bederoff.
- Plaintiff’s claims include trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and conspiracy.
- Court grants default judgment with statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and injunctive relief, but denies seizure relief under §1116(d).
- Moroccanoil to submit a proposed judgment; Bederoff to provide a sworn report within 30 days about injunctive compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moroccanoil complied with Local Rule 55-1 | Moroccanoil complied with LR 55-1 requirements and served copy of application. | Bederoff did not appear; no defense presented. | Yes; Moroccanoil complied with LR 55-1. |
| Whether Eitel factors warrant default judgment | Factors favor Moroccanoil due to prejudice, meritorious claims, and lack of opposition. | Bederoff did not controvert; no opposing arguments. | Eitel factors weigh in favor of granting default judgment. |
| Appropriate damages and remedies | Damages of $60,000 total; injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees of $4,000, and costs allowed. | Bederoff did not contest; no explicit argument against awards. | Grant statutory damages $60,000, attorneys’ fees $4,000, costs $194.50, injunctive relief awarded; seizure denied. |
| Whether seizure of counterfeit goods is permissible | Seizure order possible under §1116(d) if statutory conditions met. | Not applicable; Bederoff did not respond. | Denied seizure relief due to §1116(d) requirements not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (factors for default judgment analysis)
- Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp., 528 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2008) (treating allegations as true except damages)
- Rolex Watch, U.S.A., Inc. v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999) (exceptional case standard for §1117(a) fees)
- Craigslist, Inc. v. Naturemarket, Inc., 694 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (willful infringement and non-response support damages)
- Penpower Tech. Ltd. v. S.P.C. Tech., 627 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (default judgment considerations)
- AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979) (Sleekcraft factors for likelihood of confusion)
- Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc., 638 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2011) (relevance of Sleekcraft factors to confusion analysis)
- Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., 518 F.3d 628 (9th Cir. 2008) (test for likelihood of confusion in trademark use)
- Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc. v. Castworld Products, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (considerations in prices and remedies in trademark cases)